01 Jun ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

≠†ףנכה†תיציצ≠†לע†ונתנו

תלכת†ליתפÆ

And they shall place upon the tzitzis of each corner a thread of†turquoise†woolÆ

(Bamidbar 15:38)

_____________________________

In 1887, Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner, the Radziner Rebbe, wrote the sefer Sefunei Temunei Chol about his attempt†at†identifying†the†techeilesƆHe was interested in preparing for the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash and reinstituting the offering of korbanos, and in order to accomplish this, the Kohanim would have to wear the bigdei kehunah, a number of†which†require†techeilesÆ

Regarding the mitzvah of tzitzis, there is a machlokes among the Tanna’im whether the techeiles strings are indispensable to the ful fillment†of†the†mitzvah†©Menachos†38a®Æ†The†Ba’al†HaMa’or†held†like†the minority opinion that the techei les†strings†are†indispensableƆIn†fact¨†the Ramban (Milchamos, Shabbos 12a in Dapei HaRif) reports that the Ba’al HaMa’or did not wear tzitzis at all, following his view that there is no mitzvah to wear a tallis with only white†stringsƆThe†accepted†opinion, however, is that wearing a tallis without†techeiles†is†a†partial†fulfillment of the mitzvah, although the complete mitzvah requires both the white†and†the†techeiles†stringsÆ

However, regarding bigdei kehunah, all agree that without techeiles, the garments are unfit for use in the avodah (Tosefta Menachos 9:6, quoted by Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank in Mikdash Melech, perek 8®Æ†The†Radziner†Rebbe†felt†that†we should do our utmost to prepare for the functioning of the Third Beis HaMikdash, and, to that end, he embarked on a mission to rediscover the identity of the chilazon, which is used to dye the woolen te cheiles†stringsƆHe†opined†that†the†cuttlefish was the chilazon and he encouraged his Chassidim to use this dye in the preparation of the strings†of†the†tallisÆ

The Beis HaLevi disagreed with the Radziner Rebbe, but the exact nature of his disagreement is a matter of de bateƆIn†the†collection†of†correspondence between the Rebbe and other gedolim regarding the techeiles (Ein HaTecheiles¨†pƆ13®¨†an†anonymous†letter written by a close acquaintance of the Beis HaLevi explains the lat ter’s†positionƆHe†writes†that†if†the†Rebbe would have proven that the chilazon was a sea creature that the earlier generations were unaware of, the Beis HaLevi would have been prepared to agree with his conclu sionƆHowever¨†the†dye†of†the†cuttlefish†had†been†recognized†for†centuries, and since the earlier generations did not make use of this sea creature in the preparation of techeiles, that is tantamount to a masorah that the Rebbe’s†findings†were†incorrect†and†that†the†cuttlefish†is†not†the†chilazonÆ

The Soloveitchik family, however, has a different tradition as to what the†Beis†HaLevi’s†objection†wasƆWe heard from Rav Soloveitchik (Shiurim LeZecher Abba Mari Z”l I, 1983†edƨ†pƆ228®¨†as†the†Soloveitchik†cousins heard from the Brisker Rav, that†even†if†the†cuttlefish†was¨†in†fact, the true chilazon, it still would remain†unusableƆIn†order†to†identify†the chilazon, an unbroken chain of masorah is necessary, and the masorah cannot be reconstructed based on archaeological†evidenceÆ

Rav Elyashiv (in a correspondence to Rav Feivel Cohen) believed that the objection of the Beis HaLevi must have been as described in the first†versionƆThat†is¨†if†a†species†of sea creature that was not available since the time of the Ge’onim, when the tradition concerning the identity of the chilazon was lost, were now to be rediscovered, it would†be†acceptableƆScientific¨†historical, or archaeological proof can, in fact, be relied upon to re construct†a†forgotten†masorahÆ

The Gemara in Bava Basra (74a) relates that an Arab merchant showed Rabbah bar bar Chanah those who had perished during the forty years of wandering in the midbar in the time†of†MosheƆAfter†he†returned¨†his†colleagues said to him, “Every bar bar†Chanah†is†a†fool°†ÆÆƆYou†ought†to†have counted the threads and counted the wound sections [of their tzitzis]” to report whether they had a total of six or eight strings at each corner, so as to know whether the halachah is in accordance with Beis Shammai or Beis Hillel who disputed this point ©Menachos†41b®Æ†It†seems†clear†from†this Gemara that observation of the archaeological evidence would have been†admissibleÆ

Similarly, the Gemara in Sukkah (5a) relates that Rebbi Eliezer saw the actual tzitz of the Kohen Gadol in†Rome†and†testified†that†the†words†‘שדוק†דל†were†inscribed†on†only†one†lineƆThe†Rambam†©Hilchos†Klei†HaMikdash 9:1) rules that the inscription should preferably be writ ten†on†two†separate†lines¨†‘דל†on†the†upper†line†and†קודש†on†the†lower†lineƆThe†Rambam†adds¨†however¨†that bedi’eved, if the inscription was written†on†one†line¨†it†is†acceptableƆThe Kesef Mishnah explains that the Rambam knew this from the testimony of Rebbi Eliezer, which is considered†valid†factual†verificationÆ

A third discussion of archaeological evidence involves the well-known dispute between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam as to the proper order of parshi yos†in†the†tefillinƆThe†Bach†©Orach†Chayim, 34:1) writes of a report from†Eretz†Yisrael†that†Rashi†tefillin†were†found†at†the†gravesite†of†Yechezkel HaNavi, implying that these are†the†tefillin†with†the†correct†order†of†parshiyosƆThe†Derishah†counters†that†it†may†be†that†these†tefillin†were†archived†in†genizah†specifically†because†they†were†unfit†for†use†due†to†their†incorrect†order†of†parshiyosƆBoth sides of the argument seem to hold that in principle, archaeological evidence, if properly analyzed, is indeed†acceptableƆ˛See†Nefesh†HaRav¨†ppƆ52≠54Ƹ

This understanding paves the way for reliance on the recent evidence identifying the chilazon as the Murex Trunculus snail to restore the ma sorah†of†authentic†techeilesƆEven†if†the evidence proves to be incorrect, the Gemara in Menachos (40a) states clearly that if an imitation techeiles, such as kla ilan (indigo), is used in error¨†אל†אהי†אלא†≠†ןבל”†–†Let†˛the†indigo thread] be considered like white threadÆ”†The†mitzvah†of†tzitzis†will†still†be†fulfilled†with†these†“white”†strings, albeit in an incomplete fash ionƆWhile†there†is†a†custom†to†use†white†strings†as†tzitzis†©Rama¨†Orach Chayim 9:5), as this Gemara states, the use of blue colored strings instead of white ones would not af fect†the†fulfillment†of†the†mitzvahƆTherefore, since there exists at least a safek that we are now using authentic techeiles, we should apply the†principle†of†קפס†אתיירואד†ארמוחל®†a doubt in relation to a d’oraisa obligation is decided stringently) and be required to make use of the cur rent†techeilesƆThis†principle†applies despite the fact that even after one purchases the current techeiles strings and uses them in his tallis, he still will not know if he did, in fact, succeed in accomplishing the mitzvah (see Rav Menachem Ziemba Hy”d¨†in†Gur†Aryeh†Yehudah¨†Kuntres She’eilos U’Teshuvos, simanim 7≠8®Æ†The†argument†that†one†should†not†engage†in†activities†that†are†יזחמ†ארהויכ®†seem†like†arrogance®†should†have no relevance in this case, since that consideration is limited to the fulfillment†of†a†middas†chassidus¨†not†when†fulfilling†a†halachic†requirement†like†techeiles†in†tzitzisÆ

In fact, it would seem that wearing a tallis without the techeiles strings would constitute a violation of the lo sa’aseh of bal tigra (not to detract from the mitzvos of†the†Torah®Æ†The†Beis†HaLevi (Teshuvos 1:42) elucidates the definition of†this†issurƆIf†one†has†detracted from a mitzvah to such an extent that he has not fulfilled the mitzvah at all, that would not be labeled as bal tigra, but as a bitul hamitzvah (cancellation of the mitz vah®Æ†Bal†tigra†refers†to†a†case in which a mitzvah is knowingly performed lechatchilah in a way in which it is fulfilled only bedi’eved, in an incomplete fash ionÆ

Since†we†hold†≠†תבכעמ†תא†ןבלה†–

תלכת†הניא†the†absence†of†techeiles†strings does not affect the mitzvah of wearing the white strings, one fulfills the mitzvah with the white strings†aloneƆNevertheless¨†if†techeiles strings are available but are not used, resulting in an incomplete fulfillment of the mitzvah, one vio lates†bal†tigraƆSince†the†obligation†of tzitzis only applies if and when one dons a four-cornered garment, and our opting to wear the tallis in order to obligate ourselves in the mitzvah is done only as a middas chassidus, it would be better for one not to wear this tallis at all!